Does playing on clay make your groundstrokes sharper for grass? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Does playing on clay make your groundstrokes sharper for grass?

NADALbULLS
04-10-2010, 02:08 PM
Do all players find this, that if they do well at Roland Garros they will do well at Wimbledon? Seemed to work for Agassi and Nadal. 99 Agassi won Roland Garros and then looked brilliant at Wimbledon. Nadal, same thing for 3 years in a row.

Also, I heard Hingis and Agassi both say that the longer they played on grass the worse their groundstrokes became.

Action Jackson
04-10-2010, 02:11 PM
Far from it. The footwork is a lot different on the surfaces, look at Davydenko and del Potro both play well enough on clay, but are grass gimps.

For all the surface homogenisation some things between clay and grass can't be engineered by outside forces.

NADALbULLS
04-10-2010, 02:14 PM
^^ Yeah obviously the 2 surfaces are nothing like each other, and claycourters usually suck on grass (and several Spanish players have skipped Wimbledon). And Del Potro is not a grasscourt player at all. But of course I'm talking about the players who have the game for both surfaces, do they usually play better at Wimbledon after a good Roland Garros or do they suck at Roland Garros and then dominate Wimbledon anyway?

Action Jackson
04-10-2010, 02:17 PM
How many players have done the double Borg, Nadal, Federer, Laver and Budge. It's not like it's an easy thing to do.

No, you asked about all players, some do well and others don't.

NADALbULLS
04-10-2010, 02:19 PM
I mean 'all players' as in the ones who do well on both. Do all players with versatile games do better at Wimbledon after a successful Roland Garros more so than after a poor Roland Garros? I didn't think you'd believe I mean spanish claycourters since we know they don't do well on grass regardless.

I've never seen Agassi hit the ball sharper at Wimbledon than after winning Roland Garros. And Hingis too in 1997.

Action Jackson
04-10-2010, 02:20 PM
Nadal is Spanish, plays well on clay and has done well at Wimbledon. What is doing well mean? Isn't that relative?

NADALbULLS
04-10-2010, 02:24 PM
Nadal is Spanish, plays well on clay and has done well at Wimbledon. What is doing well mean? Isn't that relative?

Nadal isn't the point of this question, it concerns the overall influence clay has on a (versatile) player's grasscourt game. It helped Agassi and Hingis, and they both skipped Wimbledon leadup events purposely to avoid too much grasscourt play. So of the other players capable of RG and Wimbledon success (by their standards) it would be interesting to see which of those players only did well (by their standards) at Wimbledon after doing well (by their standards) at Roland Garros.

oranges
04-10-2010, 02:33 PM
What would be the basis for clay matches benefiting more for a grass slam than grass matches? It makes no sense whatsoever. In cases where players did well in both slams, isn't it more likely it's due to fact they were in excellent form, rather than the fact they played on clay before Wimbledon. In other words, if USO were to be played shortly after RG, would you be asking the same question for double RG/USO champions or is there actually something concrete you're referring to. In what sense would clay make groudnstrokes sharper?

Arkulari
04-10-2010, 04:38 PM
Clay can be seen as the key surface to develop things like defense in your game, but that's when you're learning, those who learn on clay are usually more complete players than the ones that develop in other surfaces BUT it doesn't mean that people who can play on clay are going to be good in grass, it's a matter of how a particular player and his style fits a certain surface or not :shrug:

timafi
04-10-2010, 05:08 PM
Do all players find this, that if they do well at Roland Garros they will do well at Wimbledon? Seemed to work for Agassi and Nadal. 99 Agassi won Roland Garros and then looked brilliant at Wimbledon. Nadal, same thing for 3 years in a row.

Also, I heard Hingis and Agassi both say that the longer they played on grass the worse their groundstrokes became.

look at Mauresmo and Henin.Yes Mauresmo might have never won Roland Garros due to choking but she was a fine clay court player having won Rome in 2005;2004 and was a finalist there in 2003;2001;2000.Won Berlin in 2004;2001 and 2000 and was a finalist in 1998 and won Warsaw;Nice;Amelia Island amongst other clay court tournaments beating the likes of Williams;Capriati etcLshrug: she might not have done well in Paris but she always did well at Wimbledon by making 3 semis before winning it in 2006:shrug:

Henin made it to 2 finals and 3 semis so I agree that clay makes you a finer grass court player but Del Potro and Davydenko are worthless on grass:tape: and maybe it's not fair to compare the WTA and ATP:shrug:

Start da Game
04-10-2010, 06:14 PM
on grass, moving forward is easier compared to moving sidewards where people could lose their footing and control on the shot sometimes......for that reason, many players today don't have the footwork for grass because serve and volley is renounced by the ATP professionals and no one moves forward much.......

hence we don't see too many players doing well on grass after the clay season.......not that they cannot ballbash on this surface.......it's just the same kind of tennis everywhere........problem is, they are not 100% confident all the time of their footing on grass moving corner to coorner on the baseline and fail to make those quick adjustments.......

there's also a notion that it's easy to deal with inconsistent bounce on grass when you play on clay and then make the switch to grass.......i heard that agassi used to practice on clay for wimbledon just to deal with inconsistent bounces.......

even historically, switch from clay to grass proved easy in the case of quite a few players.......

General Suburbia
04-10-2010, 06:22 PM
After the clay season, Borg would skip the grass tune-up tournaments before Wimbledon in order to get as much practice as he could on grass. They're completely different surfaces.

Jimnik
04-10-2010, 06:24 PM
Ferrero has his best runs at Wimbledon after his worst Roland Garros results. Although that's largely because his style has progressed and he's more motivated for grass than clay nowadays.

In Nadal's case, confidence and match-play are everything he needs. He usually has those in abundance coming into Wimbledon.

Har-Tru
04-10-2010, 06:32 PM
I've never seen Agassi hit the ball sharper at Wimbledon than after winning Roland Garros. And Hingis too in 1997.

Don't you think that might be because they were on very good form?

The answer is no, playing a lot on clay does not make you better for grass.

DrJules
04-10-2010, 08:38 PM
Overall disagree for several reasons.

Movement into the hitting position on clay is different on clay and grass. Sliding into position is common on clay while movement into position on grass involves footsteps.

The bounce on grass is lower than clay which means clay prepares a player for hitting groundstrokes at a higher hitting point.

The ball travels through the surface faster on grass so have less time to hit the groundstroke on grass. Clay encourages longer swings on groundstrokes which do not work on grass.

CyBorg
04-11-2010, 12:26 AM
So a few select players (a number I can count on the fingers of one hand) have done well on both clay and grass and therefore playing on clay makes one's groundstrokes sharper for grass.

Incredible reasoning. Please ban yourself.

Dougie
04-11-2010, 02:22 PM
Nadal isn't the point of this question, it concerns the overall influence clay has on a (versatile) player's grasscourt game. It helped Agassi and Hingis, and they both skipped Wimbledon leadup events purposely to avoid too much grasscourt play. So of the other players capable of RG and Wimbledon success (by their standards) it would be interesting to see which of those players only did well (by their standards) at Wimbledon after doing well (by their standards) at Roland Garros.

Nadal winning Wimbledon is not that relevant issue, beacause the slow grass nowadays doesn´t make THAT much difference to clay. Hingis is irrelevant because women´s tennis is pretty much the same regardless of the surface, it´s the same ball-bashing anyway. Agassi winning Wimbledon was a remarkable accomplishment, he did it when the grass was fast and there were many s&v-players. But the case with Agassi is that he is one of the best returners the game has ever seen, and he played a choking Ivanisevic in the final. So a great win for Agassi, but certainly doesn´t mean clay would be good preparation for grass. No matter how you look at it, there is just no basis for this argument.

FairWeatherFan
04-11-2010, 02:23 PM
No of course not, and that is why player development should not necessarily be primarly on clay (an argument propounded by some misinformed fools).

Ilovetheblues_86
04-11-2010, 03:17 PM
What about training too much on grass can make your groundstrokes get worse? Any quote on that, or reasoning?

Priam
04-11-2010, 04:20 PM
OT: Just found it interesting that after Sampras' 96 semi at RG (his best showing), he got overpowered in Wimby QFs by an inspired Krajicek.

Topspin Forehand
04-11-2010, 04:40 PM
Yeah of course. As everyone says, Wimbledon is like green clay. ;)